Summit X is HERE! Official brochure from MartinLogan

[twich54]

An aside to Dave: I understand your position and I was quite happy with my Summits. I'm just kind of upset at the way it seems ML is dealing with purchasers who shelled out 10 grand + for a product that was sold by them as recently as a couple of months ago.

Seth, I understand, but maybe, just maybe an upgrade path (electronics, crossovers, etc) is not as easily undertaken as one would be led to believe ??

 

[DrJRapp]

Seth, I understand, but maybe, just maybe an upgrade path (electronics, crossovers, etc) is not as easily undertaken as one would be led to believe ??

Speaker crossovers aren't really that complicated.

 

[theWB]

I don't really understand what you guys are whining about. The Summit is a great speaker and I am thrilled to own a pair. The Prodigy before it was a great speaker too, and I wished I had owned a pair at some point, although I do still enjoy my Ascents.

I am sure the Summit X is a great speaker too, with its crossover refinements. But am I ****ed that years after I bought my Summit, then ML has the audacity to upgrade the model, but not retrofit older speakers with the upgrade? Of course not. That is ludicrous. I got what I paid for and am happy. But all manufacturers constantly change and upgrade their models and they don't often provide those upgrades as retrofit on older models. This is just the nature of the game. Why am I supposed to feel slighted by ML? They upgraded their product. If I want the upgraded version, I sell mine and I buy it. That is the way these things work. I am quite happy with my speakers though, so am not too concerned about it.

Agreed 100% Rich
I am also very happy with Summits they are still great speakers.

 

[amey01]

Speaker crossovers aren't really that complicated.

Ah - yes they are.

Agree - they are not complex in themselves, but designing one to work the way you intend / desire is exceedingly complex.

 

[DrJRapp]

Ah - yes they are.

Agree - they are not complex in themselves, but designing one to work the way you intend / desire is exceedingly complex.

Perhaps it may be if you're not an engineer. I am an engineer, I have designed and built crossovers and ...it's really not that complex, especially for what is basically a two way speaker in spite of the two different turnover points that the two woofers have.

 

[RichTeer]

Perhaps it may be if you're not an engineer. I am an engineer, I have designed and built crossovers and ...it's really not that complex, especially for what is basically a two way speaker in spite of the two different turnover points that the two woofers have.

You seem to be assuming that the only difference between the Summit and Summit X is the crossover. What if there's more to it than just that? What if the internal bracing has changed, or the drivers, or...? Perhaps a field upgrade really isn't possible.

Dunno about you (and others with a similar position), but the potential upgrade path doesn't figure very highly in my hifi buying priority list. I want the best sound/build/etc. quality at the price I can afford at purchase time. To say that you will settle for a lessor speaker (as implied by the hint of changing speaker manufacturer) just because ML doesn't offer an upgrade for the previous flagship model just doesn't make sense to me. *Shrug*

 

[jtwrace]

Just remember who the original extra long spike maker was...

for those of you that are new to this site...

http://www.martinloganowners.com/~tdacquis/forum/showthread.php?t=3665

 

[aliveatfive]

If there's an audible difference in the new technology, some of us would like to be able to take advantage of it after already shelling out megabucks for a loudspeaker. I also really don't understand why ML has been so closed-mouthed about what's inside these. Tell us why they can't be upgraded. In my opinion, ML is shooting itself in the foot. I don't think the original ownership would've behaved in this way.

 

[amey01]

Perhaps it may be if you're not an engineer. I am an engineer, I have designed and built crossovers and ...it's really not that complex, especially for what is basically a two way speaker in spite of the two different turnover points that the two woofers have.

I still hold that it is exceedingly complex. With respect, I'm sure you can't build a crossover that has an exact crossover point, 100% attenuation, 0 degree phase shift, 0 effect on impedance and is totally transparent.

If you can then you'd be extremely rich and famous. If not, then it's all about compromise and experimentation - that's the complex part.

 

[amey01]

Dunno about you (and others with a similar position), but the potential upgrade path doesn't figure very highly in my hifi buying priority list. I want the best sound/build/etc. quality at the price I can afford at purchase time. To say that you will settle for a lessor speaker (as implied by the hint of changing speaker manufacturer) just because ML doesn't offer an upgrade for the previous flagship model just doesn't make sense to me. *Shrug*

I think that says it perfectly. You buy the best speaker for your budget at a given time. Time moves forward and if next year your chosen speaker is no longer the best, so what? Yes, it's annoying, but no more annoying that if Avalon or B&W or Audio Physic or whatever came out with a speaker that now sounds better than the Summit.

To me, an upgrade path is just a cash gouge - what they're saying is "give us even more money, even though you only bought this thing last year".

Just an alternative point of view.

 

[Bernard]

I don't really understand what you guys are whining about. The Summit is a great speaker and I am thrilled to own a pair. The Prodigy before it was a great speaker too, and I wished I had owned a pair at some point, although I do still enjoy my Ascents.

I am sure the Summit X is a great speaker too, with its crossover refinements. But am I ****ed that years after I bought my Summit, then ML has the audacity to upgrade the model, but not retrofit older speakers with the upgrade? Of course not. That is ludicrous. I got what I paid for and am happy. But all manufacturers constantly change and upgrade their models and they don't often provide those upgrades as retrofit on older models. This is just the nature of the game. Why am I supposed to feel slighted by ML? They upgraded their product. If I want the upgraded version, I sell mine and I buy it. That is the way these things work. I am quite happy with my speakers though, so am not too concerned about it.

Post of the day! I agree completely. I wonder if the Summit owners who feel slighted would still feel the same if ML did not call the new speaker the "Summit X", but instead called it the "Pinnacle" (as an example).

If they do come out with a "Pinnacle" I expect royalties for the name.

 

[DrJRapp]

I still hold that it is exceedingly complex. With respect, I'm sure you can't build a crossover that has an exact crossover point, 100% attenuation, 0 degree phase shift, 0 effect on impedance and is totally transparent.

If you can then you'd be extremely rich and famous. If not, then it's all about compromise and experimentation - that's the complex part.

Your answer sounds like a dance because you are trying to defend the indefensable.

Let me ask you a question. How difficult is it to design a crossover that you've already designed? I mean, changeing the PCB layout is probably all that needs to be done. The crossover has already been designed for the Summit X which has the same (or very similar) ESL panel and the same two woofers, so, worst case scenario the X's PCBs will not fit the old speaker due to physical space differences and they will need to create one or more PCBs specific to the upgrade version. That's all we are talking about having to do here. This it is not a major undertaking for a company with the resources that ML has, nor would it require many R&D $$$$. ML has done more complicated upgrades in the past.

My own belief is that ML is taking the "no upgrade" stance at the moment to see how many suckers they can get to unload their current "obsolete" Summits and go for the new. My guess is not many. Somewhere down the road they will realize the uproar that they have created and do "something" to bring the elder speaker more in line with the newer. Just an opinion.

 

[sleepysurf]

I, for one, disagree with the uproar re lack of an upgrade path for Summits. Nobody has even heard the Summit X, yet alone compared it to the original. Is the X really significantly better? If so, it would likely be due to a combination of new stator design plus new crossover. Why does everybody think ML owes us an upgrade path. Have they offered upgrade paths for all their legacy products in the past? When you bought your Summit did ML say there might be future upgrades? Of course not! Do other speaker manufacturers offer upgrades? None that I know of (? Meridian)

If they did offer to sell upgraded stat panels, plus all the electronic upgrades, having a bunch of user-installed gear creates warranty issues down the road.

Those of you/me that want the new Summit X, have the option of selling the old Summit, and buying a brand-spanking-new Summit X, with full warranty (or wait a while, and buy a used Summit X for quite a bit less).

 

[houstonshark]

I, for one, disagree with the uproar re lack of an upgrade path for Summits. Nobody has even heard the Summit X, yet alone compared it to the original. Is the X really significantly better? If so, it would likely be due to a combination of new stator design plus new crossover. Why does everybody think ML owes us an upgrade path. Have they offered upgrade paths for all their legacy products in the past? When you bought your Summit did ML say there might be future upgrades? Of course not! Do other speaker manufacturers offer upgrades? None that I know of (? Meridian)

If they did offer to sell upgraded stat panels, plus all the electronic upgrades, having a bunch of user-installed gear creates warranty issues down the road.

Those of you/me that want the new Summit X, have the option of selling the old Summit, and buying a brand-spanking-new Summit X, with full warranty (or wait a while, and buy a used Summit X for quite a bit less).

I agree. I don't remember seeing anywhere on the literature of the Summit (or any ML product) that should an improvement be made an upgrade will become available. It's not like we're talking about a firmware update here. I bet there are only a handful of consumer products out there (not just AV gear) that truly offer an upgrade path. Many manufacturers have used the fact that their products (electronics are the only that come to mind) are future proof and upgradeable as a selling tool. The followup (Parasound Halo) either didn't occur or was sooo slow that it really didn't matter.

I guess the fact that Martin Logan opened that door in the past by offering upgrades entitles owners of their product to whine and complain when new revisions of their products become available.

If they were so concerned with the owners on this forum and their complaints about an upgrade path they would have named it the Spire X. Clearly there would not be an upgrade path from the Spire to the Spire X and that discussion would have never come up. Marketing wise it made a lot more sense to use the Summit name since it was a popular and great sounding speaker.

 

[User211]

Hm... can I ask a question from someone who is up on list prices? What was the US retail of the Summit? And the Summit X's intended selling price?

And what is the price of a Spire plus a Descent i and/or Depth i?

This should help out with any "perceived value" notions, or lack thereof.

 

[garf]

Post of the day! I agree completely. I wonder if the Summit owners who feel slighted would still feel the same if ML did not call the new speaker the "Summit X", but instead called it the "Pinnacle" (as an example).

If they do come out with a "Pinnacle" I expect royalties for the name.

Quite agree!

Having owned a Sequel II for years I bought a discounted ex-demo Summit a few months ago (thanks to the impending Summit X!) and couldn't be more pleased. The Summit is one of the grreat speakers of the world and I doubt it can be significantly bettered without rebuilding my listening room.

The Summit X has virtually the same specifications as the old one: same frequency response, same (almost), sensitivity, same base driver setup and amplification, same panel size (both 44 inches high), same impedence, same cross-over frequency (this is a surprise - Vantage and Spire are higher), same power handling and -yes- both have a Vojtko crossover, whatever that is. The spikes look taller and the pointless top blue light costs extra. I note the Summit X has been 'inspired' by the CLX - what does that mean?

So, the new Summit may sound better, who knows, but any difference (and upgrade path) are going to be pretty small. I siggest everyone with an old Summit relaxes and enjoys the music!

 

[aliveatfive]

The opposition just does not seem to get it. When you are told by advertising, as we were a few years ago, that a purchase of "so-and-so" is the greatest, and the purchase costs many thousands of dollars (or pounds,) you are generally lead to believe that you are purchasing something that will not be surpassed for many years. ML has followed this path (in their previous incarnation) many times. The Sequel IIs that I bought in 1989 were created from the original Sequel. There was an upgrade path. The Ascentis that I bought were created from the original Ascents. Original purchasers were given the opportunity to upgrade. The Summit X is virtually indistinguishable from its predecessor, its dimensions are identical, and yet no upgrade. In my opinion, ML is trying to squeeze the last dollar out of its customer base. I owned a BAT VK51SE preamp, which I liked. The original model in this series was called a VK50SE. When an upgrade to the VK51 series was announced, it was made available as an option to earlier purchasers. When the VK52 came out, no upgrade path was provided. After auditioning, I found that I preferred the sound of the ARC Ref3. In went the Ref - out went the BAT. I suspect it will be the same with my Summits. ML - I am disappointed in you.

 

[amey01]

Your answer sounds like a dance because you are trying to defend the indefensable.

Let me ask you a question. How difficult is it to design a crossover that you've already designed? I mean, changeing the PCB layout is probably all that needs to be done. The crossover has already been designed for the Summit X which has the same (or very similar) ESL panel and the same two woofers, so, worst case scenario the X's PCBs will not fit the old speaker due to physical space differences and they will need to create one or more PCBs specific to the upgrade version. That's all we are talking about having to do here. This it is not a major undertaking for a company with the resources that ML has, nor would it require many R&D $$$$. ML has done more complicated upgrades in the past.

My own belief is that ML is taking the "no upgrade" stance at the moment to see how many suckers they can get to unload their current "obsolete" Summits and go for the new. My guess is not many. Somewhere down the road they will realize the uproar that they have created and do "something" to bring the elder speaker more in line with the newer. Just an opinion.

Let's not speculate on the type of redesign they've done - I don't think anyone would pay for an "upgrade" just to have a redesigned circuit board in their speaker!

To me, a redesign of the crossover means all new components, circuit path, and consequently electrical characteristics in order for it to ultimately sound better. We'll see.

 

[Bernard]

I found that I preferred the sound of the ARC Ref3. In went the Ref - out went the BAT. I suspect it will be the same with my Summits. ML - I am disappointed in you.

So if ARC comes out with a Ref 4, with no upgrade path from the Ref 3, will you be disappointed with ARC ?

 

[houstonshark]

Hm... can I ask a question from someone who is up on list prices? What was the US retail of the Summit? And the Summit X's intended selling price?

And what is the price of a Spire plus a Descent i and/or Depth i?

This should help out with any "perceived value" notions, or lack thereof.

Summit retailed for $10,995 (officially discontinued June 1, 2008)

Summit X will be $14,000 (per a ML employee in the know 2 days ago)

Spire retail is $8,495

Descent i retails for $2,995

Depth i retails for $1995